The term ethics 

is derived from the Greek word ethos, which originally means custom or character. Broadly
construed, ethics is a branch of philosophy that studies the rightness or wrongness of a human action. In
particular, this branch of philosophy is concerned with questions of how human persons ought to act, and the
search for a definition of a right conduct and the good life. It is for this reason that the attempt to seek the
“good” through the aid of reason is the traditional goal of ethicists (Albert, Denise & Peterfreund 1984, p. 1-2).

It must be noted, however, that there is no single, absolute definition of ethics. This is because ethics as a
discipline is constantly evolving as a result of a change in socio-cultural and political context. For example, in
the Greek tradition, ethics was conceived as relating to the concept of the “good life”. Thus, the ethical inquiry
during this time was directed toward discovering the nature of happiness. In fact, Aristotle’s Nicomachean
Ethics does not only present a theory of happiness but also provides ways in which happiness is attained. Now,
centuries later, a quite different orientation was introduced by the Judeo-Christian tradition. In this ethical
tradition, the ideals of righteousness before God and the love of God and neighbor, not the happy or pleasant
life, constitute the substance of ethics. Indeed, if we make an effort to reconcile these views, we are faced with
the difficult task of defining the relationship between “doing what is right” and “being happy”. Again, it is for
this reason that we cannot have an absolute definition of ethics. The least that we can do, in my opinion, is to
describe the nature and dynamics of ethics based on a specific time and context.

It is also important to note that ethics is not the same with morality, although many philosophers believe that
the two terms can be used interchangeably. This is because the former denotes the theory of right action and
the greater good, while the latter indicates practice, that is, the rightness or wrongness of a human action. In
other words, ethics undertakes the systematic study (that is, questioning and critical examination) of the
underlying principles of morality. Hence, it is interested primarily in the illustration of a more general problem
and the examination of underlying assumptions and the critical evaluation of moral principles.

Morality, on the other hand, is more prescriptive in nature. It tells us what we ought to do and exhorts us to
follow the right way. According to Terrance McConnell (1994), “morality is characterized as an ‘end-governed
rational enterprise’ whose object is to equip people with a body of norms (rules and values) that make for
peaceful and collectively satisfying coexistence by facilitating their living together and interacting in a way
that is productive for the realization of the general benefit”. For example, a religious leader may ask her
followers to be good at all times. In this way, a moralist may want to keep alive the values she considers to be
worthwhile and to improve the moral quality of the community where she belongs. Hence, morality, at the
very least, aims to guide one’s action by reason and gives equal weight to the interests of each individual
affected by one’s decision. Indeed, this gives us a picture of what it really means to be a morally upright
person.

Based on the brief discussion above, we may conclude that ethics is the science of morals, while morality is the
practice of ethics

Types of Ethics

During the mid-20th century, according to Sumner (1967), a “certain theory in the methodology of ethics has
gradually become more and more widely accepted, at least by British and American moral philosophers”.
According to this position, there are two ways of doing ethical inquiry, namely, normative
ethics and metaethics.

On the one hand, normative ethics is prescriptive in nature as it seeks to set norms or standards that regulate
right and wrong or good and bad conduct.  This may involve articulating the good habits that we should
acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others. Hence, normative
ethics normally attempts to develop guidelines or theories that tell us how we ought to behave. For example,
Immanuel Kant’s claim that an act is morally right if it is done for the sake of duty is an example of a
normative ethics.
Metaethics, on the other hand, is descriptive in nature. According to Sumner (1967), “metaethics is allegedly
constituted, at least in part, by questions of the meanings of the various ethical terms and functions of ethical
utterances.” Hence, if a normative ethical inquiry is evaluative and prescriptive, metaethics is analytical and
descriptive. Put simply, metaethics is a type of ethical inquiry that aims to understand the nature and dynamics
of ethical principles. It asks questions about the nature and origin of moral facts, as well as the way in which
we learn and acquire moral beliefs. Thus, for example, if normative ethics urges us to do good at all times,
metaethics asks the question “What is good?”. For sure, if a moral philosopher attempts to address the
questions “What is good?”, “What is justice?”, “Why should I be moral?”, then that moral philosopher is doing
metaethics. Hence, when Plato proposed an answer to the question “Why should I be moral”, Plato was doing
metaethics―indeed, Plato raised a metaethical question.

In the course of the development of ethics, applied ethics became its third major type. As its name suggests,
applied ethics is the actual application of ethical or moral theories for the purpose of deciding which ethical or
moral actions are appropriate in a given situation. For this reason, casuists (that is, the adherents of applied
ethics) are concerned with individual moral problems, such as abortion or euthanasia, and attempt to resolve
the conflicting issues that surround these particular moral problems. Casuists may also act on some occasions
in an advisory capacity, such as guiding individuals in their choice of actions. For example, they may attempt
to resolve the conflicting duties of a mother suffering from ectopic pregnancy who has no other option than to
abort the fetus.

Applied ethics is usually divided into different fields. For example, we may talk about business ethics, which
deals with ethical behavior in the corporate world; biomedical and environmental ethics, which deal with
issues relating to health, welfare, and the responsibility we have towards people and our environment;
and social ethics, which deals with the principles and guidelines that regulate corporate welfare within
societies.

Finally, the difference between the three major types of ethics can be illustrated in the following situation:

A police officer shoots a terrorist who is about to blow up a crowded shopping mall.

The act of the police officer is morally wrong according to metaethics because it is always wrong to kill. As is
well known, killing in itself is intrinsically wrong. However, if the police officer does not shoot the terrorist,
many innocent people will die or get injured. Though the police officer’s act may be wrong, the adherents
of normative ethics may say that it is the right thing to do in this particular situation because not doing so will
result in the death of so many people. Hence, the action might be morally correct. Finally, the casuists may say
that the police officer is just doing his best to fulfill his duty, that is, to protect as many innocent lives as
possible.